|
|
|
THIS COULD BE THE.... |
 |
|
|
Bush & Gore campaigned as common men because it's uncool to be Washington insiders
By
CHUCK McFADDEN
of TheColumnists.com
IN A RECENT lecture entitled "On Politics and the Art of Acting," the playwright Arthur Miller had some scathing things to say about American politics.
"Mr. Miller criticized how George W. Bush and Al Gore portrayed themselves to voters last year, trying to assume roles as outsiders and common men when they were part of political dynasties," the Chronicle of Higher Education reported.
The question raised immediately by Mr. Miller's criticism is whether Mr. Gore or Mr. Bush would have convinced many Americans to vote for them if they had not tried to assume roles--falsely--as outsiders and common men.
The answer is equally immediate: No.
Al Gore, former senator and vice president of the United States, is the son of a senator. He spent most of his formative years in Washington, D.C. The hearing rooms, the White House, the marble halls, the art of making legislative/political compromises (deals) are woven into his being. They are part of him. It could not be otherwise, given his circumstances.
George W. Bush is the son of a president who himself was the son of a senator. He is a multi-millionaire. His formative years were spent in the company of wealthy business executives and other players drawn into the orbit of a man who, before he became president, served as head of the CIA, U.S. representative to China and vice president of the United States.
Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore are as far removed from being outsiders, and common men, as is possible in our society. Both are robustly credentialed members of political dynasties.
But could they admit that? If Mr. Gore were honest with voters, would he not run a campaign in which he said: "Look. I've been in Washington just about all my life. I know that town, I know how it works. I know government, because I've been in government all my adult life. So vote for me."
Could Mr. Bush say, accurately, to voters: "I've always been around elites. I know how government and business interact. I've been to the top of the mountain. I know what make this country tick, because I've been among movers and shakers. So vote for me."
The answers are no, and no.
Americans distrust and dislike people whom they perceive to have spent their lives learning how things function in Washington. That is especially true of candidates who are running for jobs there. The winners presumably will have to spend much time learning how to be effective, since they have made it plain to voters that they are not the type of person who would know beforehand.
Mr. Bush talked about the tough oilfields of Texas, and a homespun background in Midland. Mr. Gore talked about working on the farm in Tennessee. You'd think we had a roustabout and a simple son of the soil running for president.
The irony is that the real backgrounds of both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush are what qualify them (by widely varying degrees, many would argue) to become president. It's what they learned as members of dynasties that provides most of the skills and background needed in the presidency, not what was learned in the oilfields and the farmlands. Neither man would admit that.
This is not an argument favoring a national government being run solely by those who have been on hand for at least 30 years. We must have regular and frequent infusions of Why Not? thinking from the hinterlands. But, along with Mr. Miller, we should be concerned about an imperative that candidates become actors, assuming roles as Washington-free commoners in order to connect with voter psyches.
Why do urbane, sophisticated people have to become halfway-hicks to win votes?
American voters want it that way. They seek someone who can give them reassurance that he or she connects with them, and understands their problems. Members of Washington-based political dynasties don't match that job description.
Never is there an ad featuring the candidate at a conference table bringing all of his or her District of Columbia experience to bear in trying to hammer out compromise legislation recognizing the conflicting interests of farmers and environmentalists, or factory owners and unions--even if that's the kind of thing they'll be doing if they win.
Such an ad would not win votes because it makes voters work too hard. It's not that voters are lazy--most Americans work very hard. They just don't work hard at civics. So the best way to get their votes is through easy-to-understand fairy tales where political dynasties have no place.
 |
|
Do you know what a common topic of conversation is these days in Washington? It's how Washington law/lobbying firms can acquire more Republicans as lobbyists. That's so the firms can do a better job of representing their clients to a Republican administration and a Republican Congress. The situation is complicated by the fact that the best and brightest Republicans are likely to be snapped up by the Bush Administration.
That's Democracy in Action. That's the kind of arcane sociology that exists in our nation's capital. That's the kind of thing that those who are sent to Washington find themselves talking about and dealing with, for better or worse. But they're not likely to bring it up to the average voter, nor is the average voter likely to be interested.
Mr. Miller, a man of acute perception and intelligence, railed against what he believes to be rampant dishonesty and hypocrisy among politicians. He's right. But until American voters do a better job of educating themselves, rampant dishonesty and hypocrisy--and acting--are what win elections.
McFadden is a former political reporter.
© 2001 by Charles M. McFadden. The cartoons are from IMSI's Master/Clips Collection, 1895 Francisco Blvd. East, San Rafael, CA, 94901-5506, USA.
You can comment on this column or contact Chuck McFadden with an email to: talkback@thecolumnists.com
| Home | About Us | Archives | Talkback | Shopping Mall |